SEVERE WX : Winter Weather Advisory View Alerts

First Amendment is at a crossroads in Supreme Court

As the Supreme Court digs into a momentous term, the justices have signaled an unusual interest in the First Amendmen...

Posted: Dec 15, 2017 3:58 PM
Updated: Dec 15, 2017 3:58 PM

As the Supreme Court digs into a momentous term, the justices have signaled an unusual interest in the First Amendment by agreeing to hear seven different cases exploring the contours of free speech.

Just last week, justices heard a much-anticipated challenge from a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake to honor the marriage of a same-sex couple out of his religious objections. The baker argues, in part, that his cakes are his artistic expression and the government can't compel his speech.

Supreme Court will hear seven cases related to the First Amendment this term

Justice Anthony Kennedy may retire next year

Kennedy has been a fierce supporter of free speech rights

First Amendment principles are on the docket in cases concerning the free-speech implications of an abortion regulation in California, so called "fair share" fees at public sector unions, a Minnesota law that bans voters from wearing ideological clothing at polling places and a retaliatory arrest claim out of Florida.-The will also hear two different cases touching on the free speech implications surrounding political gerrymandering.

All eyes will be on Justice Anthony Kennedy. The possibility of Kennedy resigning hangs over the entire court term, but he in particular has been a fierce supporter of free speech rights and is sometimes the swing vote between the four conservatives and four liberals on the court. It is possible he would want to make a mark on the future of the First Amendment before he leaves.

The court's interest also comes as President Donald Trump has triggered a broader debate on the implications of free speech. Trump has been engaged in a battle of epic proportions with the press, complaining of "fake news" and unfair coverage of him and the White House. "With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!" Trump tweeted recently.

"Candidate and now President Trump has made a number of statements about the reach of the First Amendment -- at times using it both as a shield and a sword -- but by the end of this term the Supreme Court will have the final word the contours of the First Amendment at least in a number of important areas," said Jessica A. Levinson, who teaches constitutional law at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

The First Amendment reads that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Uniting the cases is a desire on the part of justices to more clearly define the outlines of free speech. "All the cases fall broadly under the First Amendment, and they touch on different areas," Levinson said. "But what unites them is the desire on the part of at least four justices to clearly define the contours of free speech and free expression in our society."

Role of Anthony Kennedy

One reason for the sheer number of cases may have less to do with the individual issues and more to do with the interests and jurisprudence of Kennedy, who plays a critical role on the court and often casts the deciding vote or crafts the final language of a key opinion, said Frederick Schauer, an expert at the University of Virginia School of Law.

"Given that Justice Kennedy has longstanding sympathy for free speech claims, and that other justices are especially interested in free speech issues, the good lawyer will try to frame (or bend) the facts and law of his or her case to make it a First Amendment case," Schauer said in an interview.

Indeed, lawyers for Masterpiece Cakeshop baker Jack Phillips, who refused to make a cake to honor the wedding of a same sex couple because of his religious objections, brought both free exercise and free speech claims to the high court. During oral arguments, they put more emphasis on their free speech claim.

"The First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing people to express messages that violate religious convictions," said Phillips' lawyer Kristen K. Waggoner. She said that Colorado ordered her client to "sketch, sculpt, and hand paint cakes that celebrate a view of marriage in violation of his religious convictions."

Some court watchers suspect that Kennedy, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, may step down at the end of the term next summer, and the cases could give him one last chance to make a mark on how the First Amendment is interpreted.

RELATED: Anthony Kennedy loves his job -- and he's still here

Earlier this year, Kennedy spoke passionately about free speech when he wrote to strike down a North Carolina law that made it a felony for a registered sex offender "to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages."

With sweeping language, Kennedy wrote "to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights."

Kennedy said the law had gone too far restricting cites like Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin. "It is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences. Even convicted criminals -- and in some instances especially convicted criminals -- might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives."

He noted that the case was one of the first to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern internet.

"By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge," he wrote.

RELATED: Supreme Court decision is 'a constitutional coming out party' for social media

The opinion was 8-0 but Justice Samuel Alito, joined by the conservatives on the bench (Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate) wrote separately to distinguish themselves from some of Kennedy's language, saying it went too far.

Alito agreed the law was "staggering" in its reach and violated the First Amendment, but he worried about what he called the majority opinion's "unnecessary rhetoric." Kennedy's language, Alito wrote,-"is bound to be interpreted by some to mean that the states are largely powerless to restrict even the most dangerous sexual predators from visiting any internet sites, including, for example, teenage dating sites and sites designed to permit minors to discuss personal problems with their peers."

California Abortion Notices

Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative organization that represents Phillips, is also behind an abortion-related case that the justices will hear next year.-The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, a crisis pregnancy center, opposes a California law that requires them to disseminate information about the availability of state run programs that provide abortion.

California "now forces licensed centers to communicate the government's message about state-funded abortions to everyone who walks in the door," the group argued in court papers. The state, they said, does not impose such "compelled statements" to health providers that provide or promote abortion or abortificacients.

"The only ones forced by the state to speak these government messages are those who oppose abortion," they wrote.

"Both Masterpiece and the NIFLA cases involve government coercion of private speech, that's the theme that runs through these cases," said David Cortman, another lawyer at the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Lawyers for California say the law was passed in part -because some 700,000 California women become pregnant each year and over half of the pregnancies are unintended. The law, they argue, addresses problems including the fact that many women who cannot afford medical care are unaware that "public programs are available to them."

Union Fees and political support

The justices will also hear a case that concerns whether non-members of public sector unions can be required to pay so called "fair share" fees germane to collective bargaining.

Court precedent holds that while a non-union member does not have to pay fees that go to political activities, that exemption does not include fees for issues such as employment conditions and employee grievances.

The case is brought by Mark Janus, an Illinois public sector employee who argues that the "fair share" fees violate his First Amendment rights.

"It is a bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support"Janus' lawyers argue.

Unions are carefully watching this case, fearful that the conservative majority of the court is set to overturn precedent and rule in favor of Janus.

Partisan gerrymandering

Two of the biggest cases of the term concern the issue of partisan gerrymandering and how far politicians can go when they manipulate district maps for partisan advantage. The court has already heard one challenge brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin who charged that after the last census Republican legislators drew maps unconstitutionally to benefit Republicans.

Lawyers for the challengers argued in part that the new maps contravene the First Amendment by "penalizing these voters because of their political beliefs."

"That the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or the perspectives the speech conveys is a fundamental principle of the First Amendment," Paul M. Smith, a lawyer for the Democratic voters, argued in court briefs.

While Smith also made claims concerning equal protection, it was the free speech aspect that seemed to attract Kennedy at oral arguments.

"Suppose the Court," he said, "decided that this is a First Amendment issue."

In somewhat of a surprise, the court announced last week that it would hear another partisan gerrymander case out of Maryland. It's still unclear exactly why justices decided to add the case to the docket when it is already hearing the Wisconsin case.

ANALYSIS: Here are the most obscenely gerrymandered congressional districts in America

T-shirts and retaliatory speech

The court will also hear a case about political apparel at the polling place.

Andy Cilek, a Minnesota voter and executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance, was temporarily blocked under Minnesota law from voting because he was wearing a T-shirt that stated "Don't Tread on Me" at a polling place.

"Although this court has permitted campaign-free zones that prohibit campaign materials and active solicitation, it has never endorsed a ban on all political speech," lawyers for the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, who are representing Cilek, argued in court papers.

Lawyers for the state had urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the case and leave in place a lower court opinion that went against Cilek.

"The court of appeals' legal conclusion that the interior of a polling place is a non-public forum in which speech restrictions are constitutional as long as they are reasonable and viewpoint neutral is the same conclusion reached by every court that has analyzed the issue," wrote Daniel P. Rogan of the Hennepin County Attorney's office.

And the justices will hear a free speech case about retaliation sometime next year.

Fane Lozman is a critic of redevelopment efforts in Riviera Beach, Florida.-During the public comment period at a City Council meeting in 2006, a presiding officer ordered his arrest. After the state's attorney declined to prosecute, Lozman brought suit arguing in part that his free speech rights were violated when the city retaliated against him for having criticized the government.

Christine Farley, from American University Washington College of Law, is anxious to see what will change by the end of the term. She says that although the court, in general, is seen as having a pro-speech bent, that is not always the case.

The court "protected disparaging trademarks, but not offensive license plates. It protected false claims to military medals, but not government whistleblowers' claims," she said.

Levinson agreed it will be an interesting year.

"For First Amendment scholars, this is like drinking water from a fire hydrant," she said.

Indiana Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 608519

Reported Deaths: 9693
CountyCasesDeaths
Marion840461335
Lake45349684
Allen32803548
Hamilton29394315
St. Joseph27380381
Elkhart24404345
Vanderburgh19411249
Tippecanoe17970138
Johnson15069295
Porter14783169
Hendricks14401248
Madison10965221
Vigo10726181
Clark10677144
Monroe9383110
Delaware9116134
LaPorte9065163
Howard8236144
Kosciusko806983
Warrick672999
Hancock6697104
Bartholomew6484100
Floyd6428110
Wayne6136162
Grant5991115
Dubois555579
Boone551168
Morgan541295
Henry507864
Marshall503984
Cass483263
Dearborn479845
Noble473059
Jackson425047
Shelby417581
Lawrence391079
Clinton373043
Gibson370359
Harrison348144
DeKalb347164
Montgomery345754
Knox335639
Miami321444
Steuben313745
Whitley307326
Wabash303251
Adams300936
Ripley298445
Putnam296850
Huntington291659
Jasper289034
White273243
Daviess270474
Jefferson263338
Decatur247683
Fayette247148
Greene239862
Posey239328
Wells236051
LaGrange228862
Scott225339
Clay222532
Randolph213548
Jennings198936
Sullivan192333
Spencer191321
Washington186423
Fountain184027
Starke175443
Jay167623
Owen165737
Fulton164030
Orange159534
Carroll158015
Rush155118
Perry154229
Vermillion149134
Franklin148333
Tipton132332
Parke13078
Pike116926
Blackford111022
Pulaski97037
Newton90921
Brown88035
Benton86610
Crawford7999
Martin73713
Warren6817
Switzerland6615
Union6287
Ohio4907
Unassigned0376

Ohio Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 859841

Reported Deaths: 10680
CountyCasesDeaths
Franklin101171707
Cuyahoga855711125
Hamilton64017448
Montgomery43107418
Summit34836761
Lucas31350625
Butler30973232
Stark25786435
Warren19671140
Lorain19017223
Mahoning17321338
Lake16080154
Clermont15926111
Delaware1438878
Licking13204137
Trumbull12809316
Fairfield1279381
Greene12055137
Medina11591168
Clark10942265
Wood10348158
Allen9897126
Portage9296109
Miami916873
Richland9139118
Marion7459113
Tuscarawas7381182
Columbiana7327124
Pickaway726150
Wayne7034171
Muskingum703141
Erie6152129
Hancock552390
Ross548998
Scioto539164
Geauga508455
Darke470292
Ashtabula453073
Lawrence452654
Union451828
Sandusky436662
Mercer433589
Seneca430166
Huron428741
Auglaize422264
Shelby421222
Jefferson419269
Belmont416840
Washington388740
Athens38009
Putnam374975
Madison355129
Knox352622
Ashland344938
Fulton338443
Defiance330086
Crawford322374
Preble320637
Brown312921
Logan307332
Ottawa293943
Clinton290143
Williams278667
Highland275118
Jackson263845
Guernsey254125
Champaign252028
Fayette236530
Morrow23234
Perry231318
Holmes225474
Henry218749
Hardin213033
Coshocton205622
Van Wert202245
Gallia196726
Wyandot196051
Pike176217
Adams176115
Hocking172024
Carroll155616
Paulding144321
Noble120540
Meigs108624
Monroe100732
Harrison89121
Morgan83130
Vinton70213
Unassigned00
Fort Wayne
Cloudy
27° wxIcon
Hi: 31° Lo: 27°
Feels Like: 22°
Angola
Partly Cloudy
18° wxIcon
Hi: 29° Lo: 21°
Feels Like: 18°
Huntington
Cloudy
29° wxIcon
Hi: 31° Lo: 27°
Feels Like: 29°
Fort Wayne
Cloudy
27° wxIcon
Hi: 31° Lo: 27°
Feels Like: 22°
Lima
Cloudy
29° wxIcon
Hi: 32° Lo: 26°
Feels Like: 23°
Dry start to Monday, snow/freezing rain moves in late
WFFT Radar
WFFT Temperatures
WFFT National

Community Events